By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — President Donald Trump’s apparent willingness to extend a lifeline to Iran’s Ayatollah, despite the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) being on the brink of collapse, represents a grave misjudgment, arguably surpassing even the strategic errors of President Barack Obama’s Iran policy.
By propping up the faltering mullahcracy, such a move would undermine a crucial opportunity for transformative regime change in Iran, mistakenly prioritizing short-term, superficial stability over the long-term prospects of a democratic future.
An offer to “make a deal” that would purportedly “make the Islamic Republic great again” betrays a profound blindness to the half-century of mayhem and repression the Iranian dictatorship has inflicted upon its own people.
I wonder, would FDR or Churchill have engaged Hitler in a game of “Let’s Make a Deal”?
The IRGC, the very backbone of Iran’s repressive apparatus, has been demonstrably weakened by rampant internal dissent, a crippled economy, and sustained external pressures. This diminished capacity has created a rare and vital window for the Iranian people to decisively challenge theocratic rule. Yet, any offer from a U.S. administration—whether through diplomatic overtures or economic concessions—signals a willingness to preserve the oppressive status quo.
This approach regrettably echoes Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal, which, in its execution, inadvertently enriched the regime and emboldened its aggressive regional proxy activities. However, a Trump administration’s move to offer concessions now would be even more egregious, as it would occur at a moment when the regime is uniquely vulnerable, and the Iranian populace is more vocal than ever in its demand for change.
Obama’s fundamental error lay in engaging a regime that, while oppressive, still commanded significant internal control. Trump’s (hypothetical) mistake, however, would be to engage a regime that is already teetering on the brink of collapse. By offering concessions at this critical juncture, he risks inadvertently revitalizing a government that has profoundly lost legitimacy among its own people.
Widespread protests since 2019, forcefully reignited by the death of Mahsa Amini, unequivocally reveal the deep and pervasive discontent with the mullahs’ corruption and brutality. Extending a lifeline now could dangerously stabilize the regime, thereby stifling these courageous grassroots movements and significantly delaying Iran’s democratic aspirations.
Moreover, such a policy would directly contradict the Trump administration’s earlier, more assertive stance. Its 2018 withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the subsequent “maximum pressure” campaign were explicitly designed to cripple the regime economically and militarily. These measures successfully brought Iran’s economy to its knees, with inflation soaring and vital oil exports plummeting. To then soften this approach would undermine these hard-won gains, allowing the mullahs to regain their footing. This inconsistency would not only confuse key allies but also embolden adversaries, who would undoubtedly perceive weakness in such vacillation.
Instead of bolstering the Ayatollah’s grip on power, a more strategic and morally consistent approach for the U.S. would be to champion genuine regime change by actively supporting Iran’s dissidents. The United States could powerfully amplify opposition voices through targeted sanctions relief directed at reformist groups, discreet yet impactful covert aid to pro-democracy movements, and unequivocal public condemnation of the regime’s egregious human rights abuses. Such decisive actions would not only align with America’s historical commitment to freedom but would also directly counter Iran’s destructive role as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Among the potential leaders to guide this new reformation of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah and officially named Crown Prince in 1967, stands out. Having lived in exile since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Pahlavi possesses crucial advantages:
–He retains nationwide name recognition within Iran, and his reputation has reportedly seen a resurgence among some Iranians who, disillusioned by the current regime’s failures, increasingly view the monarchy’s past as a “golden age” in comparison.
–He is broadly perceived as a coalition builder rather than merely a claimant to a throne, consistently advocating for a secular democracy and emphasizing the vital need for a national referendum to determine the future form of government.
–Pahlavi proposes a comprehensive new constitution founded on three core pillars: preserving Iran’s territorial integrity, establishing a secular democratic system, and unequivocally enshrining universal human rights, including robust protection against discrimination based on sexuality. He actively calls for regime change through non-violent civil disobedience and directly urges the Iranian military to abandon its support for the current regime.
–Crucially, Reza Pahlavi has publicly articulated his profound vision for a future relationship between a democratic Iran and Israel, frequently referring to this potential partnership as the “Cyrus Accords.” This concept deliberately draws upon the historical legacy of Cyrus the Great, the ancient Persian king who, in the 6th century BCE, famously liberated the Jewish people from Babylonian captivity and facilitated the rebuilding of their Temple in Jerusalem—an act deeply revered in biblical texts like Ezra and Isaiah. By invoking Cyrus, Pahlavi seeks to highlight a historical bond of friendship and a legacy of tolerance, starkly contrasting it with the current Iranian regime’s antagonistic posture.
Pahlavi conceives of the “Cyrus Accords” as a pivotal strategic move aimed at integrating a post-theocratic Iran into a new, cooperative regional system, viewing it as a logical and necessary progression beyond the existing Abraham Accords. His argument is that for true, comprehensive, and lasting peace in the Middle East, it is imperative to address the core source of regional instability, which he firmly identifies as the current Islamic Republic. This framework forms a significant component of his broader agenda for Iran’s liberation and subsequent reconstruction. His commitment to this vision was powerfully underscored by a historic visit to Israel in April 2023, where he and Princess Yasmine visited significant sites like Yad Vashem and the Western Wall, publicly praying for renewed historic friendship.
Pahlavi consistently argues that a liberated Iran would not only usher in a new era of regional stability but also unlock substantial economic opportunities for both its own populace and Western nations. He frequently points to practical areas of collaboration, such as addressing Iran’s critical water crisis by leveraging Israel’s world-leading expertise in desalination technology, as a tangible benefit of renewing such ties. In essence, the “Cyrus Accords” embodies Reza Pahlavi’s aspirational blueprint for a future where a democratic, post-clerical Iran not only re-establishes its historical bond with Israel but fundamentally transforms into a constructive force for peace and prosperity across the Middle East.
If President Trump genuinely aims to win the Nobel Peace Prize, pursuing this path—championing genuine regime change and supporting a democratic transition under leadership like Reza Pahlavi’s—would be the strategy truly capable of sustaining a lasting peace between Iran and Israel, and indeed, the broader region.
*
Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel is spiritual leader at Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista.